Talk:1934 FIFA World Cup

Requested move

Football World Cup 1934 → 1934 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved per requested move. --Pkchan 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

League table

What is the relevance of this? Guinnog 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ершы is comparative table of results of teams. I know that it not absolutely correct a thing, but some leageus, which consist of number of divisions use this system. Behind this system we can compare results of two commands which have taken off at the same stage.

In a competition that was knockout? Guinnog 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem (apart from its complete irrelevance to the tournament, and the fact it might mislead readers into thinking this was a league competition) is that not all teams played the same number of games, so it isn't even a fair comparison. Adding points is just silly, when points weren't awarded at the time! Guinnog 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indded, and if you did so would you award two or three points for a win? Jooler 12:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The rankings were used by FIFA to determine seeds in recent years. The tables from 1978 to present are valid and for consistency we can include the ones from 1930-1974 as well. For that matter FIFA has ranked the early tournaments anyway and a document with those rankings can be found here http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi or Empire Flag Flown by Germany?

I am fairly certain that Germany flew the Nazi flag when they competed in this tournament. I will try to find some evidence of this, and if I find it I will list it here and change the flags for that country, as has been done for the 1938 FIFA World Cup. Uris 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a description of the Nazi flag being flown at the '34 World Cup here. I can't find any evidence of the Empire flag ever being flown at the '34 tournament. Uris 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 the black-red-gold flag was entirely removed and replaced with the black-white-red, though they would eventually, on September 15, 1935, replace virtually all German governmental flags with designs based on the swastika flag that had been their party flag. Realismadder 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Flag was in 1934. ;) Change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.188.163 (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hello i read an article in german and it proofed, that the nazi flag has been used--95.222.160.229 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I cant find photos of the flag at any of the matches, but the German side certainly did the nazi salute before the games - photos here from the matches vs. Sweden & Austria. BigSteve (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Czech Republic -> Czechoslovakia

In the little diagram of the course of the tournament, Czechoslovakia is anachronistically called the "Czech Republic." This needs to be fixed, but the wikicode for this baffles me, so I leave it to others! --Jfruh (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Goalscorers

We really need to find out the correct scorers. Right now the match reports don't match the top scorers list. • 辻斬り^? 10:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See here. There is no firm answer to this question. The official FIFA match reports say one thing, the RSSSF says another. Lots of great research may or may not have been done, BUT if that research is not VERIFIABLE it doesn't belong here. And we (Wikipedians) do not do original research; we report the facts claimed by others. According to WP:V, the standard used by Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Thus, in the absence of a detailed description by RSSSF or other third parties stating WHY FIFA's reports are wrong, we have to accept FIFA. Thus, I am in the process of changing all the scorer information to reflect official FIFA reports, but, as I did 1930 FIFA World Cup I will be inserting ref tags detailing what the disputed information is. This sounds clunky but I think it works out pretty well in practice. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Knockout stages diagram not showing eightfinals

Why is this? The eight "first round" matches are "knockout" matches themselves and part of the "knockout stage". The corresponding section of the 1938 World Cup (the only other world cup to have the same format) has the same style. I assume this was done on purpose to make it look similar to latter world cups, so I won't change it yet; I think, however, that this is unnecessary and inaccurate. The eightfinals matches should be added to the brackets. Anyone agree?

Why is the "bracket" diagram placed between the first round and quarter-final stages? Shouldn't it be either before or after the complete tournament details......? ChrisTheDude 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the bracket to before the listing of matches, as it made no sense to place it *after* round one, however, the template used is coded to show the "round of 16" as "Second Round", whereas in this Cup it was in fact the first round - I can't figure out how to change this. Any ideas....? ChrisTheDude 07:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The general template could say "Eightfinals", and this wouldn't affect the other articles. ChaChaFut 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a new template for this so we can be consistent with FIFA's contemporary usage. So for the old WCs we use {{Round16-oldWC}} instead of {{Round16}}. -- Deville (Talk) 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was an even better solution. Thanks. ChaChaFut 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is for the best. There are tons of these templates already, so, hey, why not more?  :)

What scandal?

The quarterfinals provided the first replay that the World Cup had seen when Italy and Spain drew 1-1 after extra time (of, as well said, one of the first scandals of World Cup history).

Does anybody know what that comment in brackets actually means? What was the scandal? Shouldn't this comment be either supported or deleted? R Lowry 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and deleted it, as it didn't say anything coherent. If anyone can figure out what the original editor was trying to say, and has a source for it, please add something back in. I can guess that it might have had something to do with the scandal of Mussolini pressuring referees which is mentioned in the intro, but who knows? -- Deville (Talk) 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, this match is often considered scandalous mainly because the Italian players were allowed by the referee to play in a very unsportsmanlike manner, and commit numerous fouls without punishment. Much has been written about this, explaining how the outcome of the match was affected by the officials, as proven by Luigi Ferrari's goal while the goalkeeper was being fouled. The referee ignored this and allowed the goal, later disallowed a legitimate goal that would have given the victory to Spain, allowed the Italian players to do what they pleased on the field, and did everything in his power to help the Italian team win. This was only in one match; this was the tone of the tournament from the beginning, a tournament which prevented great teams like Spain and Austria from getting further. Here's a good read: Severe Doubts regarding Italy's 1934 World Cup Win (written by a very well respected member of that message board, whose posts are actually of encyclopedic caliber).

According to the link to the forum post, the supposed scandal is discussed in several sources but most of the named ones are German, like Fußballweltmeisterschaft 1934 Italien (Gebundene Ausgabe) and an article in "Fussball Weltzeitschrift" published in 1996. However, there is no conclusive evidence that a scandal actually happened. All we have are reports, research, etc done today using sources from back then which may or may not be accurate or unbiased. For example, some articles may have reported the Spain-Italy match as having been officated in favour of Italy while others may have not seen it that way. Also, we should question how evidence is used by contemporary writers and researchers and why certain articles, stats, evidence is used and others not. That is, all we have are different interpretations, versions, and perspectives of what happened but nothing absolute and we shouldn't simply accept anything that is said or written without deconstructing it first.

I disagree. Wikipedia is NOT the place for deconstruction, or ferretting out which of several conflicting claims is correct, if any. That is Original Research. See WP:OR and WP:V. What should be here is a description of what is verifiable, not a determination of what is "true". If there is a controversy, the controversy should be stated here -- BOTH sides, please, with an indication of who the "sides" are. WP:NPOV and all. If there are VERIFIABLE sources that claim the match was rigged, put it here and label it. So, instead of "the match was rigged in favor of the Italians" you would have "some German sources (listed) allege that the match was rigged". \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've entered a few pieces on Rene Mercet and Ivan Eklind and Louis Baert which should provide a few answers. The 'scandal' which is referred to in Fascism and Football by Simon Martin is that Mussolini met with and, presumably, influenced Eklind (who refereed both the tight semi-final, v. the Austrian Wunderteam managed by Hugo Meisl (see my entry) and the final). What seems to be reported widely, but without citation, is that Mercet was banned from further international appointments by the Swiss FA after the replayed Italy v Spain quarter-final (in which Italy won). Please see my Rene Mercet entry for contemporary newspaper reports as to his performance. This is not evidence for him being bribed; it could be that he was overawed by the occasion. Jean Langenus did write that the Italians made it obvious that they wanted to win the tournament (as quoted in Glanville's Story of the World Cup) and, I suppose, a lot of the gaps have been filled in from there.

One thing that does seem to escape reason is the amount of replacements that appeared in the replay (refereed by Rene Mercet - see my entry) the following day. There is one reference to the fact that Ricardo Zamora had been injured in the first game and his place went to a replacement who was injured in the build up to the Italian winner. To put some meat on the bones have a look at this video and check out how both Zamora, the Spanish goalkeeper, and Platzer, the Austrian goalkeeper, are fouled in the run up to the goals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwvurx3Ih3s

Hope that helps ... Steve bloomer.

Not really... Both looked like players chasing loose balls in 50-50 situations. How do Glanville and Martin know these facts.Were they around at the time.Maybe they knew Mussolini? Every home nation gets favourable calls. Some have won with non existant goals and getting 6 with ease. So much time and effort bloomer, on a foreign nations negativity. Its so sad.Some people need to get a life. Or maybe come from a more successful football nation.FV.

The Goal.com link doesn't work, and using goal.com and bigsoccer.com as reliable sources is grasping to say the least. This is all speculation if none of it can be proven, and should be removed from the article until HARD EVIDENCE is presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProofPlease (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The author was quite clearly trying to support his own opinion, as evidenced by his replies in the thread. BigSoccer is NOT a credible source, no matter how respected a member is. Neither is Goal,com, who write an article about it every time a player sneezes. Goal aren't in the business of facts and reliable info, they report everything soccer/football-related they come across, be it true or not or what traditional outlets would consider newsworthy. The 1958, 1962, 1966, 1978, 1986, 1990 and 2002 World Cups all were also very controversial (and that's just off the top of my head); but when Italy wins, it has to be rigged. All four World Cups and one European Championship, mmmhm. Not to mention, whenever the English media brings up any European title won by an Italian club, it's quickly followed by a conspiracy theory detailing how they cheated their way to it. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

CZE -> TCH

Shouldn't the abbrevation for Czechoslovakia be TCH and not CZE. CZE didn't come into use until the founding of the Czech Republic in 1993.

At least RSSSF.com is using CZE for these teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liioadin (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Italian flags

All the flags concerning Italy on this (and 1938 world cup) refer to flagicon ITA old.. which apparently doesn't exist. Which particular flag that is suupposed to be, for germany it's the old empire flag (red-white-black)..

Actually I found the image this most likely refers to, but at least my browser (firefox on linux) has some issues rendering the svg file. The image is here and downloading the file and then opening the file works...: flag

Possible Fixing of the Cup

I am removing this, because there is no source or citation given. Might as well say that Brazil fixed the 2002 Cup for all the evidence given here. -Izzo

To be honest, it all smacks of the typical British media bias against mainland Europe, and particularly Italy. Everything England or English clubs ever won was won fairly, without any hint of controversy (through good old British hard work and honesty, don't you know), while everything Italy or any Italian club ever won was the result of match-fixing and bribery. Kind of funny coming from a nation whose football association is infamous in the rest of the world for sweeping everything under the mat; if something like Calciopoli ever happened, or has happened, in England, it would never see the light of day, and that's a fact. As every Daily Mail reader knows, England occupy a higher moral ground than those grubby 'continental' Europeans. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about. I am literally as I type watching a documentary from BBC FOUR (British propaganda i'm sure) called Fascism in Football. It notes several journalists and historians who say quite clearly, and giving substantial this cup tie was fixed. One Austrian player even claimed before he died the referee actually headed the ball back to the Italians at one point. Mussolini insisted the same ref that was in the Semi's was in the finals. That ref was invited to see Mussolini before the final, and it is claimed the night before the semi's he had dinner with him to discuss 'tactics'. No, to compare it with Brazil 2002 is ludicrous, and rips any historical context or appreciation out of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.194.27 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the referee actually headed the ball back to the Italians at one point. ahahahah sure...!! --necronudist (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=FOOTBALL+%26+FASCISM&aq=f Give that a watch, or even just google it. I don't know why you are so keen to deny something that is so clearly very plausible, that it AT LEAST deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.194.27 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense text

The Summary section starts, "The tournament was held after cupsystem" (emphasis in the original). This makes absolutely no sense as a sentence in the English language. Perhaps somebody who knows what it's supposed to mean can rephrase. Dricherby (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. That is mean tournament was played in single-elimination tournament Metufit (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Who changes flags from Nazi Germany on German Empire?

Germany used Nazi flag at all sporting games in 1934!

So why do does the logo [1] show the Empire flag (left of the leg)? chandler ··· 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1934 Germany flag seems wrong

I see a Weimar flag (red, white and black stripes), was it really the one used by Germany in 1934 ?

Please change.

German flag icon - again

As argued in three of the sections above, the German flag icon should be this: (a) Germany, and neither this (b) Germany nor that (c) Germany.

Nazi Germany means the period from 1933 to 1945. Soon after the Nazis seized power in January 1933, they passed a law abolishing the Weimar flag (c). This law legalize both, the Imperial (b) and the Nazi flag (a) equally. Another change was made in 1935, when the Nazi flag (a) was appointed as the sole national flag.

That means that there is, indeed, the period from 1933 to 1935 where one might argue about the flag being used, either (a) or (b). However, I have two reasons for favoring the use of (a). Firstly, this is the flag actually being used by Germany in this period while (b) was not. Secondly, it would be highly misleading to use (b). With the flag icon we are trying to tell the readers which country participated, and that was clearly Germany under the Nazi regime and not Germany ruled by the Emperor. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The material that specifically refers to the World Cup, the event's promotional poster, shows the Empire flag (b). You give contradictory claims as to whether the the empire flag was used in 1934. Balance of debate at Talk:FIFA World Cup is for use of the empire flag. Flags are indicators of the country's contemporary identifying symbolism, not the governing regime. We do not alternate US flags between elephants and donkeys. Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Elephants and donkeys are the symbols of two political parties. The swastica flag was the symbol of the Nazi party but also, starting in 1933, the national flag of Germany. It's for the latter fact that it should be used here! Tomeasy _{T C} 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I read on another article's talk page that the Swastika was not internationally recognised as the flag of Germany until 1935. Is that true? – PeeJay 23:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The swastika was one of two flags used as a national flag from 1933 to 1935, as has been pointed out to Tomeasy several times, and is not the one of those two used by FIFA in relation to this event. Kevin McE (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not pointed out to me, it was pointed out by me amid the very first post of this section. You brought in the completely misleading analogy with elephant and donkey party emblems.

My first point is that the swastika was the flag used by Germany as a national flag during that time.

My second point is that the empire flag is highly misleading the readers as it stands for the empire that faded in 1918.

It may be that FIFA did not use the swastika flag in 1934. I can well imagine that they had their reasons for doing so. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is the major point here, rather the two mentioned before. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, an apology that I seem to have phrased myself badly: my post of this morning should have read "... from 1933 to 1935; as has been pointed out to Tomeasy several times, it is not the one of those two..."

There is acknowledgement that there were two flags in use as symbols of Germany at the time of the 1934 WC: we can indeed say that the swastika was a flag used by Germany as a national flag , but not the swastika was the flag used by Germany as the national flag. Therefore a choice, based on evidence (not prediction of what readers might find misleading), must be made as to which we use here. In the absence of photos from the ceremonies or stadia to see which flags were actually flying, the most relevant evidence seems to be the poster produced by FIFA, which clearly uses the "empire" flag. It is not a matter of what regime Germany was under, it is a matter of how Germany was symbolically represented in that place at that time.

Where Tomeasy and I stand on this is clear: time for WP:30 Kevin McE (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you show the poster you mean (and stop threatening me on my talk page)?

Again, it was me to point out at the very beginning that the Swastika was one of two national flags of Germany. It is beyond me why you have to insist on your offensive phrase pointed out several times to Tomeasy. I feel uncomfortable by the tone you use during this discussion, also when you say that you are wondering about my motivation for this subject. I do not remember having been aggressive with you at any time, so please treat me with the due respect. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the poster. You can see the empire flag (although the black at the top has faded to yellow) to the right of the player's kicking leg. – PeeJay 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is correct. So, you say black became yellow, while all other colors remained true. Why not assume that green became yellow, and say it was the Hungarian flag? You may be right, you may also be wrong.

Nevertheless, isn't it more important to see which flag was used by Germany in 1934 than to look at the flag FIFA might have used due to their own political agenda. Isn't it very important not to use a flag that is in virtually all cases connected to the German state that faded 15 years earlier. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not the Hungarian flag because the Hungarian flag has the red at the top and the green at the bottom. It also has a crest in the middle. In fact, apart from the German and Argentine flags, all of the flags of countries at the 1934 World Cup with horizontal stripes have red at the top. – PeeJay 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the only evidence for the imperial flag?

What do you think about the two points that I consider more important anyway? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See this Italian newspaper from 4 June 1934, the day after Czechoslovakia–Germany. On the first page, in the middle right, it shows a photograph of the teams entering the field, with clearly the Nazi flag being shown.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, your link is dead - at least for me. Could you please check. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this link? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is an excellent contribution to bring us further, I think.

Now, there are two flags being shown on the photograph, and I think, these are the two variants of the German national flag at the time, (a) and (b). Does everybody agree with this observation?

That means that I can extend my reasoning that (a) was the German national flag at the time just as much as (b) was, in that this equality now also covers Germany's appearance during the 1934 World Cup.

Kevin's argument that the swastika was merely a party symbol like elephant and donkey was dead for long, I presume. Or does anyone contest the dual flag arrangement between 1933 and 1935?

The 1934 World Cup specific argumentation that this event used flag (b) and not (a) is now also dead.

That brings us to the somewhat simpler question as to which flag icon shall represent 1934-Germany on Wikipedia. And to this question, the most important argument seems to me, and has not been contestd so far, that we shall not confuse our readers by using (b) (even though permitted by the dual flag arrangement), but to use (a) (permitted for the same reason), because (a) clearly and correctly indicates that Germany in 1934 was Nazi Germany and not the German Empire.

Who's not convinced yet? Tomeasy _{T C} 11:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd just like to point out that the newspaper clearly states that the flags are the national flag and the one of the Hitlerian party. According to this, as well as the official FIFA poster (a non-decolored one can easily be found on the web), I'd rather go with the Empire flag (b). Even when it may be true that both flags were commonly used as representation of the country. At any case, if it is true that both flags were effectively used (and I'm inclined to say 'yes' to this), maybe the topic itself isn't then so important. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

the newspaper is simply wrong here. Since 1933, this flag was also the national flag. It is understandable that the paper made this mistake as the swastika was well known before 1933 for quite some years as the part flag. The point is that Germany did display both flags because they were both their national flags. I think this is not contested, is it? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my slightly tongue in cheek reference to US party insignia has thrown you off the intent of my argument. It was a response to your assertion that we needed to show that the country that participated "was clearly Germany under the Nazi regime and not Germany ruled by the Emperor", and intended to illustrate, with some hyperbole, my response that "indicators of the country's contemporary identifying symbolism, not the governing regime": let's drop argument about the relevance of it.

The key point remains that we cannot say that either flag was "the" national flag of Germany in 1934, only that it can be said of both that they were "one of the national flags". This truth renders statements like "isn't it more important to see which flag was used by Germany in 1934" meaningless: the answer is ambiguous We can't show both. Our decision must be based on evidence, not fear of readers erroneously supposing that the Empire flag had not been used since 1918. An encyclopaedia should inform, not be hampered by (or pander to) the fear that people are ill-informed. The evidence we have so far, imperfect though it is, is that both flags were in evidence, but that one (the so called empire flag) was more used than the other. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At the time of this world cup, both flags were at equal standing. Your final sentence that one was more used than the other is not supported by evidence. Especially, when you insinuate to know that this one was the empire flag.

Since both were at equal standing, we are in the lucky situation that we can make our choice. Hence, it is just logical to use (a) as it is informative and not misleading. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We agree that both flags were of equal standing as national flags, and have done all along. The difference is that they were not afforded equal treatment by FIFA: one of them was chosen for the publicity materials for the event, the other was not. It therefore was used more than the other, in that particular context. I see no logic in your repeated suggestion that the black/white/red flag is misleading: in this context it does not refer to the German empire, in refers to Germany in 1934, just as if it were to be used (although I don't think it should be, for reasons already stated) the Nazi flag would not be referring to the Nazi party, but to the country. Kevin McE (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that both flags had equal standing by the German government at the time being both the official national flags.

We disagree in that the flag (b) was given prevalence at the world cup. A poster where none of the two flags can be clearly identified does not serve as evidence, I think. On the contrary, we have evidence that they were both used equally when Germany went on the pitch.

We disagree further in that the all decisive argument for our flag use here should be the flag use of FIFA in 1934. Rather I think that it makes sense to represent Germany between 1933 and 1935 (on all Wikipedia articles where flag icons are used) by the same flag, i.e., the Nazi flag (a). Anything else is highly confusing and misleading.

What we need at this point are third opinions, as I feel that we have made each other perfectly understood. So this request would first go to User:PeeJay2K3, User:Ipsumesse, and User:EdgeNavidad. Beyond that, how could we seek more opinions without canvassing? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard on another talk page that the Nazi flag wasn't internationally recognised as the German flag until 1935, so therefore I would stick with the Empire flag. By the way, it's very easy to request comments on a discussion without canvassing. All you have to do is inform people of the discussion without expressing an opinion about which way they should !vote. – PeeJay 07:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You've brought in a new and very important argument. Can you link to the discussion (or perhaps even evidence outside Wikipedia) pertaining to Nazi flag's non-recognition before 1935? Thanks also for the comment on canvassing. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, from what I've read at Flag of Germany, it seems that the United States at least didn't recognise the Nazi flag as the official German flag until 1935. It says that a group of demonstrators invaded the SS Bremen, tore down the Nazi flag and threw it into the Hudson River. After the German ambassador complained, the Americans claimed that it was only a political party symbol that had been "violated", not the German flag. It was that incident that forced Göring to proclaim the Nazi flag as the only official flag of Germany. – PeeJay 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of this story. I interpreted it that way that the Americans just did not know that Germany had lifted the party symbol to national flag status in 1933. The same way that I interpreted the caption of the photo in the news paper. From my viewpoint, the US did not recognizing because they were not aware of the dual flag arrangement. You see it this way that they did not recognize as a deliberate act (similar to some countries not recognizing the independence of others). This brings me to ask, do other countries have a say in which flag is the official flag of a country? Do you think they do? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be other evidence to suggest that other countries did not recognise the Nazi flag at the time, but this is all I've found so far. And yes, I would say that there must be some recognition of a national flag from other countries, especially in a Wikipedia context, because if no other countries recognise a different flag, how can that flag be used in contemporary media? – PeeJay 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, as long as nobody joins me and comes up with arguments for the use of (a), I will drop this subject and content myself with the current status of the article. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map used shows the modern boundaries of Italy, not those of 1934. For consistency, would it be better to use a map of the era? The 1919 map that is available in wikipedia has the same boundaries as a 1934 map would have had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.119.90 (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request at Template talk:Location map#New map, to be able to include this map.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,125346,00.html
  • In Edmund Conen on 2011-03-17 23:23:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 1934 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 03:06:56, 404 Not Found
  • In 1934 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-02 12:17:50, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The link will not be removed. It will simply be marked dead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany played under the Nazi flag at this competition

While blogs are not reliable sources, this photo from the competition seems to imply that the team played under the Nazi flag and not the "empire flag". An anonymous editor from Vietnam continues to make the change appealing to the poster for the games as a source. However the poster simply displays flags and does not indicate which flag the German team played under. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user morphs into User:Pakon111. Welcome. Please discuss here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently user has relented. Also, the entire discussion above seems to indicate that consensus has been reached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Match Spain Brazil, FIFA scorers are wrong

First goal was scored by Iraragorry, but Langara scored second and third. See [2], [3]. Iraragorri only scored one goal i all national team matches [4], [5]. Thanks. Felato ([6]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.227.213 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't this change been made? Eduardo5890 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Kick-off time of the first round matches

Kick-off time of all the first round matches was 16:00 CET, not 16:30 CET. I found this in the different newspapers in old articles about all matches. From the second round kick-off time was changed to 16:30 http://dlib.coninet.it/bookreader.php?&f=2020&p=1&c=1#page/4/mode/1up (see page 4, first column "Le partite avranno inizio alle ore 16.30") Eu-football-info (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eu-football-info: Hi, the article you linked does say that the time was changed to 16:30, but it doesn't say what time were the matches before the switch. Did you get the information about them being at 16 somewhere else? Tanonero (msg) 21:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Examples for some matches: Italy v USA - http://dlib.coninet.it/bookreader.php?&f=2017&p=1&c=1#page/4/mode/1up (page 4) - "ore 16" in article title; France v Austria - https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7640179p/f6.item.zoom - "Le match debute a 4 heures juste." in the 4th column. It is possible to find kick-off time of every game in different newspapers. And it was 16:00 CET Eu-football-info (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Tanonero (msg) 19:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)